Measure to allow statewide grand juries and AG prosecutions for election crimes fails to reach supermajority
Get AI-powered insights, summaries, and transcripts
Subscribe
Summary
Senator Cousert framed a constitutional amendment to let the attorney general convene statewide grand juries for election-law prosecutions as a way to remove local politics; senators pressed concerns about partisan AGs and local DAs, and the resolution failed to reach the two-thirds requirement (yeas 28, nays 21).
Senator Cousert argued the amendment would "let the people of the state of Georgia vote as to whether they wanna take politics out of prosecutions," saying the proposal is restricted to election-law offenses and intended to put prosecutions in a statewide, dispassionate forum. He cited recent controversies around prosecution decisions and said a statewide grand jury, supervised by a judge and with the attorney general as prosecutor or designee, would provide "fair and balanced" procedures.
Questioners repeatedly pressed whether the change would concentrate partisan power in an elected statewide attorney general and whether that official could act impartially. Senator Cousert responded that "they are capable" of impartial prosecution, but opponents insisted the measure risks inserting statewide politics into prosecutions and noted the amendment would itself require a two-thirds vote to become part of the constitution.
The committee substitute was adopted, and the floor proceeded to a vote on the adoption of the resolution by substitute. The final vote was yeas 28, nays 21, short of the two-thirds constitutional threshold required to send an amendment to voters.
Lawmakers who supported the resolution said they would pursue enabling legislation if voters approved an amendment in the future; opponents urged caution and warned about concentrating prosecutorial authority in an elected, partisan office.